Solipsism

[Partinobodycula]

Sometimes I do things which are really stupid. I am about to do one of those things.

In an earlier post I attempted to define what I mean by “self”, and although I gave an honest answer, I did not give a complete answer. Suffice it to say that I am not at all at ease with the complete answer, for it reeks of spirituality, and could easily be misconstrued. But in the interest of complete disclosure, I will finish my definition of “self”.

There are, as I see it, three aspects to myself. Body, soul, and spirit. I could call them body, experiences, and mind I suppose, if I wanted to to keep this secular and avoid any unnecessary hint of spirituality, but hopefully everyone will forgive me if I use the unscientific terms, body, soul, and spirit.

My spirit is that part of me that is self-aware. It thinks, it reasons, and it wonders. It contemplates its own existence. It is my mind. It is the evidence that I am.

My soul is that part of me that is born from life. It is hope, and despair, and envy, and pity, and a myriad of other human emotions. These are the things that come from not just “being”, but from being alive. The soul is not an innate aspect of the spirit, it needs the struggles and joys of life to give it substance. The soul is the sum of the experiences of life.

And last of course we come to the body. The body is the physical manifestation of the “self”. It is the vessel through which the mind, experiences life, and the “self” gains a soul.

These three things are how I would define my “self”. I know, it veritably reeks of new age sprituality, which is why I hesitated to fully disclose it. There is no quicker way to lose credibilty than to start spouting new age mumbo jumbo, but there it is. (As if a solipsist could lose credibility) But for those who wanted to know how I define my “self”, that’s it.

This definition does raise some very intriguing questions, about how this “me” came to be. When I look around at all the “stuff” in the universe, all the particles and atoms, all the planets and stars, I can’t help but wonder, did all of this “stuff” give rise to me, or did I give rise to it?

It’s how I answer that question that makes me a solipsist.

 

[bmullins]

If you are truly a solipsist wouldn’t there only be the spirit? Body and soul by the very definition of the terms would not be able to be known to exist and could be simply manifestations of your self awareness.

 

[Partinobodycula]

If you are truly a solipsist wouldn’t there only be the spirit? Body and soul by the very definition of the terms would not be able to be known to exist and could be simply manifestations of your self awareness.

Let me see if I can clarify. As a solipsist I would argue that nothing can be known to exist independant of my own mind. The body, I would argue, exists, but only as a manifestation within my own mind. My body is merely a representation of myself. It is created within my own mind, along with everything else including you, unfortunately.

Although my body can’t be said to actually exist independant of my mind, it is still an aspect of myself, and so must be included when defining myself.

The soul on the other hand is different. It is the product of experiences. It’s not a direct manifestation of the spirit, it is an acquired aspect of my “self”. It is not innate. It still exists only within my mind, but is different in nature than either the spirit or the body.

The spirit is the pre-existing part, the body is the manifested part, and the soul is the acquired part. Three distinct aspects, one mind.

I hope that this is a little bit clearer, even if it still doesn’t make logical sense.

 

[You]

What if you just exist inside someone else’s mind, another Solipsist. And you only think you exist.

 

[bmullins]

But by your definition of body and soul they are both perceived by experiences outside the mind. The soul is hope, despair, pity etc. All of these rely on external things. Fear for instance, requires something to be afraid of. Hope requires something to hope in. etc. Without external things existing, neither can any of this. So by solipsism the soul cannot exist and is simply a factor of your mind.

The same with the body. All of the body as far as you can identify is concerned with external feelings. The 5 senses are all to do with things outside of your mind. So once again, none of that can be known to exist. By the very definition of the term solipsism, you cannot count on the body being anything more than generated by the mind.

 

[preferanonymous]

Partinobodycula:

“Although my body can’t be said to actually exist independant of my mind, it is still an aspect of myself, and so must be included when defining myself.”

I am not sure that the solipsist can say this. For the solipsist, if they can doubt the existence of their body, the claim ‘I am not my body’ could be true. Hence, I do not think that they, the ‘I’, can be their body at all.

“The spirit is the pre-existing part, the body is the manifested part, and the soul is the acquired part. Three distinct aspects, one mind.”

Is the spirit something which I had or was before my conception? I suppose I am not sure that this is possible because, before my conception, there would have been no me to have or be anything at all. To believe in an immortal soul is not necessarily to believe in one that existed before I was conceived. Rather, it would be one that could not cease to exist once it was created. The question you might ask is that if this self of solipsism, this ‘I’, is something that whose existence I know I cannot be wrong about, does this impossibility of getting it wrong imply that I am going to get it right? With such an abstract ‘I’, how does one even know the ‘I’ has anything to do with him or her at all? How does one know in uttering the ‘I’ of solipsism one refers to anything at all?

Another way to see this might be to ask, if solipsism is true, how does one know that when one says ‘I see a candle’ and then later that ‘I see a chair’ that the ‘I’ refers to the same thing? If the ‘I’ might not be a living human being- the proposition ‘I am a living human being’ might be false for the solipsist- how could we know this ‘I’ stands for the same thing in both statements? This problem of continuity of reference seems to suggest that the ‘I’ or self of solipsism is an empty notion.

Some of these sorts of thoughts, I think it might be said, might be found in the work of Elizabeth Anscombe.

 

[tonyrey]

1. We have overwhelming evidence that we are not

If you have to appear in court, apply for a job or a child’s allowance, get married or divorced or fill in an official document I’m sure you couldn’t and wouldn’t consistently maintain that you are the only person who exists!

6. We cannot interpret the knowledge we have of ourselves **correctly **

*unless we are taught about the world by those who bring us up from babyhood.

For the most part I agree with this statement, but I have a touch of a problem with the word correctly, we interpret ourselves based upon how we are taught, but we do not necessarily interpret ourselves correctly.

Criminals can - and do - produce similar arguments!

7. The concept of solipsism is obtained by information received from others

• when we are old enough to understand abstract concepts!

Actually I am a self taught solipsist, coming to know the term only after having developed the concept independently.

No one is entirely self-taught about the nature of reality…

8. If we really believed nothing exists beyond ourselves we would act as if

• nothing exists beyond ourselves.

I believe that if you carefully consider the implications of solipsism you would find that it is actually better to live as if reality does exist, rather than reject it and live as if it doesn’t

I do and so you do - in spite of being a solipsist!

9. The fact that we are constantly avoiding danger proves we are convinced of the reality of the outside world.

This proves only that I understand the concept of cause and effect. I hit my thumb with a hammer, it hurts. To think that a self created illusion is incapable of connecting cause with effect is illogical.

You believed in physical causality before you became a solipsist - and you still do!

10. Solipsism is similar to having a dream because dreams don’t correspond to reality!

Unless of course the dream is reality.

I think you mean reality is your dream and no one else’s. Don’t you ever regard yourself as being too possessive?

Suppose you fall in love… How will you deal with the situation?

Or come to believe in God… Won’t you pray?

Finally a selfish request on my part:

Please let me have just a little taste of reality…

I’m fed up with being no more than a figment of your imagination:

**I want to be a real person!

… …
**

 

[shoe]

If you have to appear in court, apply for a job or a child’s allowance, get married or divorced or fill in an official document I’m sure you couldn’t and wouldn’t consistently maintain that you are the only person who exists!

Criminals can - and do - produce similar arguments!

No one is entirely self-taught about the nature of reality…

          I do and so you do - in spite of being a solipsist!

You believed in physical causality before you became a solipsist - and you still do!
I think you mean reality is your dream and no one else’s. Don’t you ever regard yourself as being too possessive?

Suppose you fall in love… How will you deal with the situation?

Or come to believe in God… Won’t you pray?

Finally a selfish request on my part:

Please let me have just a little taste of reality…

I’m fed up with being no more than a figment of your imagination:

**I want to be a real person!

… …
**

Dittos, tony.
By definition if the reality of solipsism is true, then the omnipotent mind, along with the an omnipotent imagination, of a single solitary person is the only reason that the universe, the heavens, animals, plants, rivers, mountains, and the good folks on CAF exist. This solipsist (solitary person), according to definition, must logically be the first or beginning cause of everything. And, theoretically at least, imagined objectivity must exist only for the solipsist’s good pleasure, since all existence is merely the subjective illusions of the solipsist’s fertile mind. However, if perchance one solipsist should meet other solipsists (which would be a contradiction), at a solipsist convention, for example, then all of them except one must be either deluded or simply hold the wrong point of view, which is to say that perhaps solipsism never was genuinely real for anybody in the first place. I’ve heard that one way to check the sincerity of a self-proclaimed solipsist is to throw a fairly heavy object in his or her direction, and if that person runs for cover, then that self-proclaimed solipsist was not sincere.

 

[meltzerboy]

First let me say hello to everyone. Although I was raised a Catholic, I have not been to church in over forty years, and I would never have thought that I would find my way to a Catholic forum.

But I do enjoy sound reasoning, and so I often search for websites that have an interest in philosophy. I seldom interact or participate in the discussions, for I am one of those people who are quite content with silence. I have no pearls of wisdom to offer, and no great intellectual knowledge to impart. I’m an uneducated, unread, simple lover of logic and reason.

I stumbled upon this site while doing a search on the subject of Solipsism. A subject of particular interest to me, because I am a firm supporter of the irrefutability of Solipsism. There was a thread in this forum a while back that dealt with this subject, and it appeared that although many argued against it, there are few who truly understand it.

Although I don’t feel any need to vigorously defend my views, I thought that I might take a moment to explain Solipsism, and answer any questions other members might have.

As with most belief systems and philosophies, there is no one definition that holds true for all adherents, but in a general sense, Solipsism is the belief that nothing can be known to exist outside of one’s own mind. It’s not that a Solipsist knows without a doubt, that nothing exists outside of themselves, it’s just that there is no way to know for sure. Everything that one sees, or hears, or feels, or tastes, or smells, may simply be an illusion. A Solipsist does accept the possibilty that everything that they see is real, they simply recognize the fact that they can never know for sure. All that a Solipsist knows for sure, is that I am. Everything beyond this one simple truth must be accepted on faith.

Solipsism does not preclude a belief in God. A Solipsist can be a Christian, a Jew, or a member of any faith. After all, if everything truly is an illusion, then that illusion suggests a creator, and a purpose. If one can accept all of reality on faith, as Solipsists do, then is faith in God really so much of a stretch.

People who do not understand Solipsism mistakenly argue that it is irrational for a Solipsist to interact with a world that they believe may be only an illusion. Is it irrational for a Christian to pray to God? If it is rational to pray to that which you cannot see, is it no less rational to interact with that which you can see? Regardless of its origin or nature, “reality” is all that a Solipsist has, and thus it is perfectly rational to interact with it.

Let me reiterate, the Solipsist does not believe with certainty that reality exists only in their mind, they simply admit that it is impossible to prove otherwise. Beyond this simple assertion, all Solipsists, just like the believers of any doctrine, are free to interpret their beliefs as it suits them.

If anyone here has any questions or thoughts on the subject I will gladly do my best to address them. If not I will return to the silence from which I came.

Isn’t there a similar belief in Hinduism: not exactly solipsism but the belief that the external reality is an illusion? I used to think about solipsism when I was a college student, many a year ago, and more recently as a psychologist since this is a topic of discussion with regard to the field of perception. I’ve also entertained the notion that I, including my mind, may not exist, despite what Descartes stated about his inability to doubt that he was doubting. Perhaps I’m the product of someone else’s mind, or dream, or nightmare! We really know so little; even so-called reality must ultimately be taken on faith. Nonetheless, for the purpose of functioning in the world–whether it is real or not–we must, I think, make certain assumptions, as you seem to do. Welcome to CAF, or what we believe is CAF!

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Solipsism is only “irrefutable” because you, the solipsist, are the only “true” being, how can “not you” prove “you” wrong in your “own” universe? It’s a bunch of codswallop.

How does a solipsist deal with pain & pleasure? These are physical responses that the mind perceives, so wouldn’t that suggest that there is for surely more than just your mind?

~Alberti Devoveo

PS: I did not read all the posts in this thread, so I apologize if my points have been brought forth already.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Fear for instance, requires something to be afraid of. Hope requires something to hope in. etc. Without external things existing, neither can any of this. So by solipsism the soul cannot exist and is simply a factor of your mind.

I can see that I haven’t adequately explained my understanding of solipsism. Fear does require something to be afraid of, and hope something to believe in, but these things need not be external. Just as nightmares can cause fear, from nothing but the vagaries of one’s own mind. The mind can imagine all that it needs to, in order to produce fear and hope, and a hundred other emotions. Your mind can produce illusions as easily as it can create dreams. All that you see, all that you believe to be, may exist only in your mind.

How or why the mind conjures up such things I cannot say. Being a solipsist doesn’t make me omniscient. I know not how some things can be. I make no claims to some greater wisdom. In some sense I admit to less. If I claim anything in any greater measure, it is skepticism, and doubt. If I cannot adequately explain my understanding it is a weakness that I shall continue to strive to overcome. But it may take me some time.

You are correct in saying that the soul is a factor of one’s mind. But I do not believe that the spirit and soul are the same, at least not to me. The spirit is what I am, just as you might claim to be human. Just as everyone else on earth is human. In this way you and they are the same. But there is more to you than this. You have experiences and education and upbringing that makes each of you unique. You’re all human, but you’re not all the same. The spirit is like your humanity, it defines what you are, but the soul is like the totality of your life, it defines who you are.

That I suppose is the best way to sum up the difference between spirit and soul. One is what you are, and the other is who you are.

 

[Partinobodycula]

To believe in an immortal soul is not necessarily to believe in one that existed before I was conceived. Rather, it would be one that could not cease to exist once it was created. The question you might ask is that if this self of solipsism, this ‘I’, is something that whose existence I know I cannot be wrong about, does this impossibility of getting it wrong imply that I am going to get it right? With such an abstract ‘I’, how does one even know the ‘I’ has anything to do with him or her at all? How does one know in uttering the ‘I’ of solipsism one refers to anything at all?

preferanonymous, I am not well read, and I do not know the works of Elizabeth Anscombe, but perhaps I should. I do not know how or when the “I” came to be, or if it will someday cease, but I know that I am. There are a great many things that I readily admit that I do not know. You ask, “does this impossibility of getting it wrong imply that I am going to get it right?” No it does not. I could be very, very, wrong. I honestly do not fully understand what the “I” in “I am” really means.

Funny somehow, I know that “I am”, but I don’t really know what “I am”.

 

[Partinobodycula]

**I want to be a real person!
**

Oh, you not only have my permission to be a real person, but you have my fervent hopes that you turn out to be the most amazing, astonishing, magnificent person that I could hope to imagine. I want you to be truly inspirational.

:extrahappy: :bowdown2: :dancing:

 

[Partinobodycula]

We really know so little; even so-called reality must ultimately be taken on faith. Nonetheless, for the purpose of functioning in the world–whether it is real or not–we must, I think, make certain assumptions, as you seem to do. Welcome to CAF, or what we believe is CAF!

Thank you very much, it is indeed a pleasure to be here at CAF, and if you do not object, I will assume that you are a very compassionate, and understanding person.

 

[Partinobodycula]

How does a solipsist deal with pain & pleasure? These are physical responses that the mind perceives, so wouldn’t that suggest that there is for surely more than just your mind?

~Alberti Devoveo

PS: I did not read all the posts in this thread, so I apologize if my points have been brought forth already.

It would indeed suggest that there is more than my mind, but as you may well know, the mind is easily deceived. It can conjure up pain as easily as pleasure. I would only submit that the intensity of the experience is not evidence for the veracity of it. It is difficult to understand why I would put myself through the torment that life seems inevitably to inflict. If this reality is all of my own making, why such suffering? Often the greatest aspects of our character, come from the most trying times of our lives. There is a poem that I have posted before that says it well.

I walked a mile with Pleasure;
She chatted all the way;
But left me none the wiser
For all she had to say.

I walked a mile with Sorrow,
And ne’er a word said she;
But, oh! The things I learned from her,
When sorrow walked with me.

I understand completely that you haven’t read the entire thread. I too must apologize, for my answers get shorter, less involved, and more repititious as this thread goes along, and for that I am truly sorry. I wish that every answer that I gave was brilliant and insightful. But I too am still learning as I go.

 

[tonyrey]

*If you have to appear in court, apply for a job or a child’s allowance, get married or divorced or fill in an official document I’m sure you couldn’t and wouldn’t consistently maintain that you are the only person who exists!

Criminals can - and do - produce similar arguments!

1. 
   *]Not necessarily insincere but certainly unrealistic! I’m interested to know a solipsist’s answers to my questions…

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

It would indeed suggest that there is more than my mind, but as you may well know, the mind is easily deceived. It can conjure up pain as easily as pleasure. I would only submit that the intensity of the experience is not evidence for the veracity of it. It is difficult to understand why I would put myself through the torment that life seems inevitably to inflict. If this reality is all of my own making, why such suffering? Often the greatest aspects of our character, come from the most trying times of our lives.

I don’t think the bold line is as strong as you think it is. I agree that the mind can be deceived when it comes to pain & pleasure (like recalling an injury can inflict a pain response in your body & mind), so perhaps I should have clarified my question:

How does solipsism deal with pain & pleasure when it is observed as it occurs? How do you deal with your reaction of pain to someone sticking a needle in your arm to draw blood with the coincidental observation of that same event? Surely that must inform you that there is more than just your mind, shouldn’t it?

~Alberti Devoveo

 

[Partinobodycula]

How does solipsism deal with pain & pleasure when it is observed as it occurs? How do you deal with your reaction of pain to someone sticking a needle in your arm to draw blood with the coincidental observation of that same event? Surely that must inform you that there is more than just your mind, shouldn’t it?

~Alberti Devoveo

Alberti, thank you for clarifying. This is a very good question, and like your original question, my answer also needs clarifying. I cannot be sure exactly what you’re thinking, but I will try to understand where you’re coming from, and come up with an appropriate answer.

It seems that skeptics of solipsism often have no problem understanding that the mind can create visual illusions. They are quite familiar with dreams, and are aware of the phenomena of hallucinations, so they are prepared to accept the solipsist’s argument up to a point, but when it comes to pain, they consider this a whole different animal. I poke you with a needle, you feel pain. It’s very direct. I poke = you pain. At that point it should be obvious even to a solipsist that this is no illusion. But if we think about how the brain senses and interprets pain, we find that there really is no difference between the information the brain interprets as pain, and that which it interprets as vision. Both are simple electrical impulses. The only difference being that the brain handles and interprets them differently. It’s just as easy for the brain to create an illusion of pain, as it is for the brain to create a visual illusion. And it is certainly no problem to create both a visual illusion of being poked with a needle, and a corresponding illusion of pain, at the same time. The fact that the two coincide does not give any added weight to the argument for physical reality over illusion.

Pain feels intense and impossible to deny, but pain cannot be used as evidence for the “realism” of an event, for like the vision, the pain may be only an illusion.

When I talk about how the brain senses and interprets pain I am not suggesting that any illusion requires a real physical brain. The brain too may be only an illusion. I use the analogy of the brain only to illustrate that the mind is capable of creating both the visual illusion, and its corresponding illusion of pain.

I hope that we are getting closer to an understanding, if I can possibly clarify further please let me know.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Alberti, thank you for clarifying. This is a very good question, and like your original question, my answer also needs clarifying. I cannot be sure exactly what you’re thinking, but I will try to understand where you’re coming from, and come up with an appropriate answer.

Gladly welcome for the clarification. My line of thinking is trying to debunk solipsism, so anything I present likely could be viewed as an assault on solipsism.

It seems that skeptics of solipsism often have no problem understanding that the mind can create visual illusions. They are quite familiar with dreams, and are aware of the phenomena of hallucinations, so they are prepared to accept the solipsist’s argument up to a point, but when it comes to pain, they consider this a whole different animal.

I only mentioned pain in regards to seeing & feeling the effect of some event occurring, I don’t believe it is a different animal than any other phenomena.

I poke you with a needle, you feel pain. It’s very direct. I poke = you pain. At that point it should be obvious even to a solipsist that this is no illusion.

Which is my point.

But if we think about how the brain senses and interprets pain, we find that there really is no difference between the information the brain interprets as pain, and that which it interprets as vision. Both are simple electrical impulses. The only difference being that the brain handles and interprets them differently.

What you are saying is that all senses, then, are the same when getting down to the electrical impulses. That is a rather Atomist position, one that I would disagree with entirely. Your brain responds to smells very much differently than how your brain responds to touch, despite both being reactions to electrical impulses. Even the locations of where the brain responds to such stimuli are different (smell is found in the olfactory bulb, the bottom, middle, front of the brain while touch is found in the primary somatosensory cortex), all of which suggest that the electrical impulses of the information are actually different.

It’s just as easy for the brain to create an illusion of pain, as it is for the brain to create a visual illusion. And it is certainly no problem to create both a visual illusion of being poked with a needle, and a corresponding illusion of pain, at the same time. The fact that the two coincide does not give any added weight to the argument for physical reality over illusion.

I don’t believe that it’s “no problem” to create the visual & somatosensory illusion of pain; if it were truly “no problem” then anesthesiologists & pharmacists (not to mention those in illegal drug trades) would be out of jobs.
I also don’t see why coincidental somatosensory & visual stimuli would not add weight to the argument for physical reality. It is a repeatable event (the coincidence) that should clearly show that there is more than just the mind.

Pain feels intense and impossible to deny, but pain cannot be used as evidence for the “realism” of an event, for like the vision, the pain may be only an illusion.

I think any coincidental senses should and can be used as evidence for realism. If you don’t have your senses, how can your mind learn anything?

When I talk about how the brain senses and interprets pain I am not suggesting that any illusion requires a real physical brain. The brain too may be only an illusion. I use the analogy of the brain only to illustrate that the mind is capable of creating both the visual illusion, and its corresponding illusion of pain.

This is just beyond me how anyone can think this be logical & physical (a necessity, in my opinion, for being a “good” philosophic system). If you “may not” accept the brain as real, then how can you even learn anything? If only your mind exists, then how can you extrapolate anything outside of it? Either there is something outside the mind, or there is nothing; it is your choice to make.

I hope that we are getting closer to an understanding, if I can possibly clarify further please let me know.

Answering the above questions (where they appear) might help, but I just don’t understand how anyone can take solipsism seriously. A joke I know: a group of solipsists walk into a pub; one heads out for a packet of cigarettes and the pub disappears.

 

[Partinobodycula]

My line of thinking is trying to debunk solipsism, so anything I present likely could be viewed as an assault on solipsism.

Skepticism is always welcome. I will try to answer any questions as honestly and completely as I am able. I started this thread in order to explain solipsism to those who may not understand it. I expect people to question my position, and I take no umbrage to the fervor with which they choose to do so. You are always entitled to disagree.

What you are saying is that all senses, then, are the same when getting down to the electrical impulses. That is a rather Atomist position, one that I would disagree with entirely. Your brain responds to smells very much differently than how your brain responds to touch, despite both being reactions to electrical impulses.

Indeed I am saying that at the level of electrical impulses all the senses are the same, and that the mind is capable of some astonishing things. But I really don’t wish to debate the physiology of the brain. It was perhaps an error on my part to attempt to use the brain as an analogy for the mind. I can see now that that was not the best choice. If we can but agree that the mind is capable of producing the illusion of pain, I will be satisfied.

You believe that the coincidence of obsevation and pain is evidence that the world is more than an illusion, and I can accept and understand your position. But for me these two things are not evidence enough. It is not my goal to win a debate. I am only here to explain as best I can. I realize that at times this will not be sufficient.

This is just beyond me how anyone can think this be logical & physical (a necessity, in my opinion, for being a “good” philosophic system). If you “may not” accept the brain as real, then how can you even learn anything? If only your mind exists, then how can you extrapolate anything outside of it?

I am not insenstive to your objections concerning the minds ability to create such an illusion. Nor to the overall logic of solipsism After all, I can’t even give you an explanation as to what I believe the mind to be, or how it functions, or where it came from. I would be lying if I told you that I understood these things. But neither can I give you an explanation as to what the universe is, or how it functions, or where it came from. These things are just as much a mystery to me. How did all that I see, come to be? Science gives me their evidence, and religion gives me their beliefs, but neither really gives me the answer, even if for a time they might give me comfort.

As I have mentioned in an earlier post, I am not as wise as most, but I do have this tendency to be introspective. And sometimes when the din of the world fades away, and I’m feeling particularly small and alone, and it feels almost as if I could hold all of creation in my hands, it seems in those times that I know the answer. All that I see, came from me.

Okay, everybody who thinks that this is over the top drivel, raise their hands. :whackadoo:
Sorry folks, I just couldn’t stop myself.